Just another WordPress.com weblog

Menu

Post navigation

I wasn’t sure if this was John Dunham Jr or his son John. At the time of the incidentin 1665 John Dunham Sr. was still alive, so it’s possible it is the grandson whomight have been called “John Dunham the younger” to distinguish him from theother two.But I think the names of the three men who helped pay the 40helped me decide it. Benajah Pratt was married to Persis Dunham, a sister ofJohn Jr. Jonathan Dunham was John Jr.’s younger brother. Here’s the story fromVolume 4 of the Plymouth Court Records:

1Aug 1665

In reference vnto John Dunham the younger, for his abusive carriagetowards his wife in contnuall tiranising ouer her, and in pticulare for his lateabusiue and vnciuill carryage in endeauoring to beate her in a deboist manor,and for affrighting of her by drawing a sword and pretending therwith to offerviolence to his life, hee, the said Dunham, is sentanced by the Court to beeseuerly whipt ; but through the importunitie of his wife, the execution ofthe said centence was respeted for psent vntill the Court shall take furthrnotice of his furute walking, and then to doe therein as occation shall re-quire ; and for the preuension of future euill in the like kind, the Court seescause to require securite for his good behauior vintill the next Generall Court,and so fron Court to Court vntill the Court shall see cause otherwise to order.

John Dunham the younger acknowlidgeth to owe vnto our sou lord the Kinge the sum of 20:00:00George Bonum the sume of 6:13:04 Benajah Pratt the sume of 6:13:04Jonathan Dunham the sume of 6:13:04The condition, that if the said John Dunham bee of good behauior towards our soulord the Kinge and all his leich people, and in particulare towards his wife in reforminghis former abusiue carryage towards her both in word and deed, and appear att theGenerall Court of his matie to bee holden att Plymouth the first Tuesday in Octobernext, and not depart the said Court without lycence; that then, &c.” Vol4 p103-104

I had to look up the word “deboist”. It seems to have been a synonym for the word debauched.

The maiden name of John Jr.’s wife is unknown to me. She’s listed only as Dorothyon the family tree. Frankly, I’m disappointed that she intervened to have the whippingsentence suspended. I think John Dunham Jr. needed a good whipping for that behavior, or at least a couple of slaps up the side of the head.

Nothing deep in this post but it sort of ties in with two other posts this week.

As I mentioned in an earlier post about online genealogy, FamilySearch recentlyadded the collection of images from the Massachusetts, Land Records, 1620-1986.There are 5,766,135 images. Now, if you are someone with Massachusetts andNew England ancestry, this is genealogical manna from heaven. On my Dad’s side of my family, I have lines going back to the Mayflower and The Great Migration, soI have quite a few names to search for on those records. I’ve barely scratched thesurface and I’ve already discovered some of those ancestors bought and sold a lotof land.

This is going to take a while to go through all of them. A long while. I’m adrift in a sea of information.

Not that I’m complaining, mind you. I’m already learning things, such as a hithertounknown occupation for one ancestor and that same land record may help establish the timeline for that person’s move from Massachusetts to New Hampshire.

I can now couple the Massachusetts Land Records with court records, pension files and probate files to give a really good picture in some cases of a person’s entire life.

I’m hoping that the Land Records will help me break down my John Cutter West

The only problem I have is trying to choose which ancestors to work on first. Allthings considered, it’s a pretty nice problem to have, though.

There’s a scene in Monty Python & The Holy Grail where the Dead Collectoris going through a village hit by the plague with a cart. One of the villagers tries to put a dead man into the cart, but there’s one problem: the dead man isn’t dead. “I’m not dead!” he insists.

I thought about that scene yesterday after reading an article on The Vergewebsite. It’s entitled “Who am I? Data and DNA answer one of life’s big questions”It’s an interesting article, especially the parts with Thomas MacEntee. But I’m not in agreement with the writer of the article. Near the beginning she makes the following statement:

“Genealogy’s next phase, which is quickly approaching, is actually its end game. The massive accumulation, digitization, and accessibility of data combined with recent advances in DNA testing mean the questions we have about our families — who they were, how they got here, and how they’re related to us — will soon beinstantly solvable. Realistically, the pursuit of family history as it exists now probably won’t be around in 20 years: most of the mysteries are disappearing, and fast.”

Now as I mentioned a few posts back, I’m an online genealogist. I do most of myresearch online. But I don’t think that every single record from every courthouseand archive in the world is going to be online in 20 years. I think it might happen in50 years, but even then, I don’t think that will sound the death knell for genealogyas we know it. Nor do I think DNA testing is going to tell me how many of myancestors were blacksmiths. Heck, I’ve had a y-DNA test done and the only answerswere vague generalities that told me very little. It was like using a genealogical“Eight Ball”.

Let’s say for the sake of argument they do get every document, every diary, every familygenealogy or local history scanned and online. It’s not going to be the end of genealogyIt’s just going to mean more things for us to hunt for, find, look at and analyze. It’s notjust finding all that information that’s important, it’s understanding what you are lookingat and what it means for your family’s history. Nor is having everything online going toknock down all our brick walls. There will always be something left to find.

I wish I could write a longer more philosophical piece about this, but I’m not that smart, andthe hour is late and my brain is turning to Swiss Cheese. There’s the effect all this is goingto have on local genealogy societies and perhaps on professional genealogists. But I thinkyou can get my gist from what I have been able to say in these ramblings.

Suffice it to say, to paraphrase Monty Python, genealogy’s not dead yet, and not likely tobe for a very long time.

Whenever I find some record or document online, I do a bit more searchingon Google to see what else I might find about it or the events around it. Mysearch for more details about John Dunham and Samuel Eddy’s dog led me toSam Behling‘s website and this poem. It’s by Eddy descendent WilliamHolden Eddy and originally appeared in the Eddy Family Association Bulletinin 1934.(Issue #1 Vol XIII, April 1934). I’m reprinting it here with the permissionof the Eddy Family of America. My thanks to Lin Eddy-Hough , the Chair of the Publications Committee for the Association.

As I mentioned in the previous post, my ancestor John Dunham Jr. and Samuel Eddy had their differences mediated by neighbors and they seem to have gotten on better with each other afterward, to the point that they shared the upkeep ofa cow.

Also, Zachariah, Caleb, and Obadiah were Samuel Eddy’s sons.

An Elegy on the Death of Samuel Eddy’s Dog

To day no lofty strain I sing, of Pilgrims’ joy or suffering, No tales heroic do I bring to set your minds agog; An incident of daily life of bitterness, alas, and strife, When rumors sorrowful were rife of Samuel Eddy’s dog.

The breed he sprang from who can name? Mastiff or bull we cannot claim. Or trained to seek the fleeting game, in forest or in bog; Lurcher or hound, or terrier keen, Spaniel or Porter, greyhound lean, Naught do we know of this, I ween, of Samuel Eddy’s dog.

What that dog did we do not know, almost three centuries ago, Little indeed the records show, in Plymouth’s catalogue. But this we read, one summer day stretched cold in death the poor beast lay, Poisoned by some fell foe, they say, was Samuel Eddy’s dog.

Of this in truth we may be clear, that all the settlers, far and near Spoke words of comfort and of cheer, in friendly dialogue; And soothed, as best they could, the woe that had o’ercome its master so, And checked the tears that would o’erflow, for Samuel Eddy’s dog.

Think of the grief of Zachariah, of Caleb, sad as Jeremiah, And doubtless year-old Obadiah, though somewhat in a fog, Upraised his voice in wailing strong, and added to the weeping throng Another lamentation strong for Samuel Eddy’s dog.

What was John Dunham’s dreadful fate? What punishment did him await? Who made the household desolate? What was the epilogue? This only, that he sureties gave, than henceforth he would well behave For ever after poison crave for Samuel Eddy’s dog.

But later these two men agreed in partnership a cow to feed, To satisfy their households’ need with milk instead of grog; Thus out of evil, good somehow will often come; and so that cow Repentance shows and sorrow now, for Samuel Eddy’s dog.

So let us pardon grant to him, and trust he’s with the cherubim, That man who gave the poison grim, and broke the Decalogue. And let us all assembled here in heartfelt sorry drop a tear Upon the long forgotten bier of Samuel Eddy’s dog.

My colonial immigrant ancestor John Dunham was a deacon of the church atPlymouth Colony. While the Deacon was a respectable citizen, his sons did theirshare of hell-raising before settling down.

The oldest son, John Jr. first appeared in the Plymouth Court Records on criminal charges in 1646 when he was twenty six years old, for something I personally find repugnant:

4Aug 1646In the case betwixte Samuell Eddy and John Dunham, Jun, abiyt ye saidJohn Dunhams giving poyson to the said Samuell Eddy’s dogg, the Court, having taken the same into serious consdieracon. vpon hearing what could besaid on both sides. the Courte doth order yt ye said John Dunhame sall findesureties for his good behavior vnto ye next Court. Vol2p107

By that next Court session, things seemed to have calmed down considerably between John Jr and Samuel Eddy and they’d found two neighbors to mediatebetween them:

27Oct 1646In a case of difference twixte John Dunham, Jun, and Sam Edie, the Court orders,& the said John Dunham agreed therevnto, that Mr Wm Paddie and John Cooke,Jun, shall heare, end, & determine all former civill differences twixte them to this psent day. Vol2 110

Eventually, Deacon John Dunham passed away. John Jr became a father of a son alsonamed John. He was now John Senior. There are two appearances that caught myattention. In the first, he was the victim:

5Jul1669 Att this Court, John Dunham, Senir, came into the Court and complained againstJohn Dotey, that hee mett him in the high way, and did crewelly beate him, and affeirmeth that hee goeth in danger of his life because of the said Dotey, and hathtaken an oath before the said Court for the truth of the pmises, and prayeth awarrant of the peace against him.John Dotey acknowlidgeth to owe vnto our sov lord the Kinge the sume of 20:00:00John Soule the sume of 10:00:00Samuell Smith the sume of 10:00:00

The condition that if the said John Dotey shall and doe keep the peace towards oursov lord the Kinge and all his leich people, and in speciall in reference vnto thesaid John Dunham,and appear at the Court of his matie to be holden at Plymouththe last Tuesday in October next, and not depart the said Court without lycence;that then, &…”– Volume 5 p25

The condition of John Dotey’s release seems to be some sort of ritual phrasing thatpeters off into that “&”, prpbably the equivalent of “yada yada” for that period. Also40 pounds seems to have been the standard fine in cases like this. The reason I think this is becuase the exact same phrase and fine are used a year later when John wasthe perpetrator. It should be noted that “carriages” does not refer to baby carriages,but to how a person behaved or “carried” themselves.

7June 1670John Dunham, Senr, being bound ouer to this Court to answare for his abusivespeeches and carriages towards Sarah, the wife of Benjamine Eaton, and being conuict thereof, was contanced to be bound to his good behauior.John Dunham acknowlidgeth to owe vnto our sov Lord the Kinge the sume of 40.

The condition, that if the said John Dunham be of good behauior towards oursou lord the Kinge and all his leich people, and is speciall towards Sarah. the wifeof Benjamine Eaton, and appear att the Court of his matie to be holden at Plymouth aforesaid the last Tuesday in October next, and not depart the said Court without lycence; that then , & e.V ol5 p 40

As bad as my 8x great grandfather John Dunham Jr.’s behavior might have been at times, his brothers were as bad, if not worse. I’ll didscuss them next.

Back when I first started researching my family history, I was what was labeled a“bedroom” or “pajama” genealogist. The image conjured up by that is of someone sitting at a computer in the corner of their bedroom, dressed in their pajamas asthey surfed the internet looking for family records and documents. And that’s prettymuch what I did.

Well, except for the pajamas. I was fully clothed.

Back then, I was working as the manager of a video store and working weird hours.Many days I didn’t get home until well after midnight, and my one day a week off was for buying groceries and doing laundry. There was no time to visit archives orcourt houses, and even if there were, I barely knew where to begin. Some earlier visits to those places to find information on John Cutter West had not gone beyondlooking for his birth record because I didn’t know what else I should look for. Aftermy friend Diana told me I could download a free PAF genealogy program I did so andbegan filling in information my Aunt Dorothy had sent, and then more from FlorenceO’Connor’s book about my Ellingwood and Dunham ancestors. Then I started Googlingnames, and searching Rootsweb and Footnotes.com.

I started finding things: Google Books editions of the Essex County Court Files, PensionFiles on Footnotes for ancestors I didn’t know had serve4 in the American Revolution.I found birth, death, and marriage records on FamilySearch and Federal Census Recordson Ancestry.com. When I started this blog, it brought me into contact with distantcousins who shared pictures and documents with me. I found newspaper stories about fatal accidents and a journal entry from a scientist about a conversation with my 2xgreat grandfather and the details about what he told the scientist.

All of this I found online.

And it keeps going on and on. FamilySearch is putting more documents online every day,They’ve posted Probate Files for Maine and New Hampshire and recently added the Massachusetts, Land Records, 1620-1986 collection. I’ve found more things I might never would have found as quickly and easily as I have found them online. I’m grateful to them,Ancestry.com, Fold3, and all the other websites that have made my search much easier.

I know there are still plenty of things out there that aren’t online and that I would have to go see where them where they are kept. Maybe after I finally get a replacement for theLate Great Ping The Wonder Car I’ll have the chance to do that. There is still some whoare a bit dismissive of those who research mostly online.

But for the moment, I will proudly say I am an online genealogist.

Only now I do it in the parlor, with a laptop, and still fully clothed.

In one of my posts about John Barnes I wrote about how the Plymouth Colonygovernment struggled to deal with his drinking problem. At one point they evenmade it a crime in 1661 to sell him any liquor. Even that didn’t seem to work, andI wondered how effective that strategy could have been, given that John imported and sold liquor as part of his business as a merchant. I think this next record shows one way he could get plenty of liquor.

Up until the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay Colonies merged most of the townssouth of Boston, such as Yarmouth on Cape Cod were part of Plymouth Colony. This record from 1667 deals with how much rum and sacke(white wine from Spain) werebrought into Yarmouth during 1666m and certain discrepancies of amounts on the invoices of the shipments. Among the people practicing what might be considered“creative bookkeeping” were Jonathan Barnes and his brother in law, Abraham Hedges.

5Jun 1667The Account of the Liquors brought into Yarmouth the Year last past, giuen in by Mr Thacher.The 15 of the first month, Elisha Hedge, one barrell of rum.Mr Hedge, 9 gallons of sacke.September 14, (66,) by John Barnes, for Elisha Hedge, fifty gallons of rum.For Mr Sprague, 10 gallons of rum.For Samuell Sturgis, 30 gallons of rum.For Edward Sturgis, Junir, 25 gallons.Jonathan Barnes brought sundry barrells of liquors to the towne, since whichhee did not invoyce with vs, but did after some distanceof time invoyce itwith the Treasurer.

The first weeke of Aprill, (67,) Edward Sturgis, Senir, 22 gallons of sacke, which was invoyced, tho not in due time according to order.

Att that time, there were fiue or six barrells of rum bought of the merchant attSatuckett, whcih was not invoyced, but concealed one barrerll ; Jonathan Barnes had another barrell ; Joseph Ryder three more, hee seized for the countrey,which haue bine since condemned, viz : Samuell Sturgis, one barrell of rum ; Edward Sturgis. Junir, one barrell of rum ; and Abraham Hedge, one barrell of rum,which lyes responsible for his father to cleare betwixt thia and the Court in Julynext.

Boardman, halfe a barrell, or somwhat more, which hee invoced.

The first week in June, 67, Jonathan Barnes invoyced oNe barrell of rum forJohn Mokancy, Abraham Hedge had about three barrells last sumer, which it isvncertaine whether invoced or now. Plymouth Court Records Volume 4pp152-153

I’d be willing to bet that some of the misinvoiced rum ended up in a tankard that Jonathan’s father John drank with gusto!